[ re: Zeppelins - DO NOT go see the movie "Flyboys" just so you can see a nice CGI version of a WWI dogfight between French bi-planes, German tri-planes, and one Zeppelin, as cool as the trailer looked. That was one of the worst clichéd, stereotypical, hackneyed, crappiest movies I've ever seen. "The Great Waldo Pepper" was far superior and wasn't even set during the Great War. But five years from now when you can buy the DVD for spare change at a rummage sale, the Zeppelin fight is kinda cool. But not worth $8. ]

and on the MIL units, they do not always represent 'Volksturm' or other emergency draftees, or even most of the time. Perhaps at times they do, like when the Leningrad MIL re-appears time and again inside a surrounded Leningrad. A lot of the time they represent units that aren't even depicted on a WiF counter - of which there are many, obviously WiF is not geared towards recreating the complete corps/army level WWII OOB of each participant. But in general they represent the training and replacement systems of every army. So when a fresh class of recruits from the Breslau area were ready for duty and they were sent off to garrison Yugoslavia or something, they were part of an Army Group, Army, Corps (probably but not defintely?), and Division which isn't necessarily a WiF counter. In WiF you just rail or walk the Breslau MIL to where you want more infantry. Perhaps you rail it on top of an historical corps that was just retreated in an enemy blitz combat...in real life it took heavy casualties and needed to draw on it's depots back home...in WiF an INF was flipped over while another corps it was stacked with was selected as a loss...back in real life both corps still exist and the recruits railing in from home are used to replenish the units...but in WiF the MIL counter remains on the board until selected as a loss in the future... (Though in reality each country handled this natural functioning of an army at war completely differently, that topic is beyond the scale of WiF).

The MIL from the capital cities are the best because generally each army would have their best officers and units stationed at the barracks near their capital, that was the prestige posting. I think a lot of time and effort could be saved by covering such units with a standard explanation of this design element of WiF. There is no way to relate which campaigns such a MIL unit participated in, because there were no such units. Perhaps with a very few of these (Sydney MIL maybe?) such a synopsis would be possible but this would be the exception.

ORIGINAL: capitan [2527] [Berlin Militia] .T This unit symbolises all the different Militia, Landwehr and Volksturm troops that helped in the defense of Berlin. .P Berlin was captured on the 2nd of May 1945 by the Russians and most of the different surviving formations in this corps probably surrendered with the fall of the city. .H .B Campaigns: Berlin (1945) .H .P **MIL are generic units representing regular infantry formations rushed into combat with only basic training and less inherent support weapons and motor transport**

-----

Steve could you process it and let us see what it looks like?

I will upload version 3.00 today so you and Terje can generate screen shots of the land and naval unit writeups to your hearts' content.

For doing that I use HyperSnap 6 to take the screen shots. It works like a charm. You might have trouble with a limit of 200KB on file size - just avoid full screen pictures. As moderator of the forum I have a max of 500KB which I have pushed close to at times.

<Ctrl> U brings up the Units Review Form. To get the background colors to match I run Barbarossa for USSR and German units, Guadalcanal for CW and Japanese units, and Global War for all the rest. I actually set up the units each time and progress to the next country to be set up in order to get the backgrounds to match. Though I guess game save and restore might be faster.

[ re: Zeppelins - DO NOT go see the movie "Flyboys" just so you can see a nice CGI version of a WWI dogfight between French bi-planes, German tri-planes, and one Zeppelin, as cool as the trailer looked. That was one of the worst clichéd, stereotypical, hackneyed, crappiest movies I've ever seen. "The Great Waldo Pepper" was far superior and wasn't even set during the Great War. But five years from now when you can buy the DVD for spare change at a rummage sale, the Zeppelin fight is kinda cool. But not worth $8. ]

and on the MIL units, they do not always represent 'Volksturm' or other emergency draftees, or even most of the time. Perhaps at times they do, like when the Leningrad MIL re-appears time and again inside a surrounded Leningrad. A lot of the time they represent units that aren't even depicted on a WiF counter - of which there are many, obviously WiF is not geared towards recreating the complete corps/army level WWII OOB of each participant. But in general they represent the training and replacement systems of every army. So when a fresh class of recruits from the Breslau area were ready for duty and they were sent off to garrison Yugoslavia or something, they were part of an Army Group, Army, Corps (probably but not defintely?), and Division which isn't necessarily a WiF counter. In WiF you just rail or walk the Breslau MIL to where you want more infantry. Perhaps you rail it on top of an historical corps that was just retreated in an enemy blitz combat...in real life it took heavy casualties and needed to draw on it's depots back home...in WiF an INF was flipped over while another corps it was stacked with was selected as a loss...back in real life both corps still exist and the recruits railing in from home are used to replenish the units...but in WiF the MIL counter remains on the board until selected as a loss in the future... (Though in reality each country handled this natural functioning of an army at war completely differently, that topic is beyond the scale of WiF).

The MIL from the capital cities are the best because generally each army would have their best officers and units stationed at the barracks near their capital, that was the prestige posting. I think a lot of time and effort could be saved by covering such units with a standard explanation of this design element of WiF. There is no way to relate which campaigns such a MIL unit participated in, because there were no such units. Perhaps with a very few of these (Sydney MIL maybe?) such a synopsis would be possible but this would be the exception.

ORIGINAL: Shannon V. OKeets <Ctrl> U brings up the Units Review Form. To get the background colors to match I run Barbarossa for USSR and German units, Guadalcanal for CW and Japanese units, and Global War for all the rest. I actually set up the units each time and progress to the next country to be set up in order to get the backgrounds to match. Though I guess game save and restore might be faster.

ORIGINAL: Shannon V. OKeets <Ctrl> U brings up the Units Review Form. To get the background colors to match I run Barbarossa for USSR and German units, Guadalcanal for CW and Japanese units, and Global War for all the rest. I actually set up the units each time and progress to the next country to be set up in order to get the backgrounds to match. Though I guess game save and restore might be faster.

What backgrounds do we use for neutral countries?

There is nothing specific about backgrounds. It is merely cosmetic for the post. Since some of the scenarios remove a lot of countries from the game (e.g., Barbarossa), using Global war is a good idea since it will show every country in the game. If you are being picky about this, then I suggest the USSR background because (1) it is a 'neutral' color, and (2) it is the 2nd country to be set up and easy to get to - you just set up the USA.

and on the MIL units, they do not always represent 'Volksturm' or other emergency draftees, or even most of the time. Perhaps at times they do, like when the Leningrad MIL re-appears time and again inside a surrounded Leningrad. A lot of the time they represent units that aren't even depicted on a WiF counter - of which there are many, obviously WiF is not geared towards recreating the complete corps/army level WWII OOB of each participant. But in general they represent the training and replacement systems of every army. So when a fresh class of recruits from the Breslau area were ready for duty and they were sent off to garrison Yugoslavia or something, they were part of an Army Group, Army, Corps (probably but not defintely?), and Division which isn't necessarily a WiF counter. In WiF you just rail or walk the Breslau MIL to where you want more infantry. Perhaps you rail it on top of an historical corps that was just retreated in an enemy blitz combat...in real life it took heavy casualties and needed to draw on it's depots back home...in WiF an INF was flipped over while another corps it was stacked with was selected as a loss...back in real life both corps still exist and the recruits railing in from home are used to replenish the units...but in WiF the MIL counter remains on the board until selected as a loss in the future... (Though in reality each country handled this natural functioning of an army at war completely differently, that topic is beyond the scale of WiF).

This is a really good rationalisation of unit losses in WiF, which I may just have to steal. You might also add to the description of MILs that they could be reservists like TA (Territorial Army -UK) or equivalent, especially when found in a nation's Reserve Pool.

yeah I was re-reading my post today. I forgot to mention the words 'Reserves' and 'Mobilisation'. MIL represent a lot of things actually. In the USA the MIL would probably be National Guard troops, but I think the National Guard was used at division level (as far as complete units) only in WWII???

yeah I was re-reading my post today. I forgot to mention the words 'Reserves' and 'Mobilisation'. MIL represent a lot of things actually. In the USA the MIL would probably be National Guard troops, but I think the National Guard was used at division level (as far as complete units) only in WWII???

Yep I was going to suggest National Guard but wasnt sure of their history going back to WWII. Did they see much active service as individual units?

yeah I was re-reading my post today. I forgot to mention the words 'Reserves' and 'Mobilisation'. MIL represent a lot of things actually. In the USA the MIL would probably be National Guard troops, but I think the National Guard was used at division level (as far as complete units) only in WWII???

Yep I was going to suggest National Guard but wasnt sure of their history going back to WWII. Did they see much active service as individual units?

AFAIK there were 5,3 National Guard divisions in the South (West) Pacific, as the first American ground troops there:

32nd, Maj-General Edwin Harding, replaced by Lt-General Robert L. Eichelberger, Wisconsin and Michigan Nat.Guard (from Sept 1942, Battle of Buna, Summer 1943 Salamaua, Oct-Nov 1944 Leyte, Jan - June 1945 Luzon, one of the battalion commanders was Archie Roosevelt, one son of the president). In 1942/43 32nd and 41st National Guard divisions administratively formed a corps under Eichelberger

41st (as garrison in Australia, from Jan. 1943 in New Guinea, May to June 1944 Biak, March-Aug 1945 Zamboanga),

43d New England (one of its regiments was on the transport, which was sunk by an American mine in Espirito Santo in 1942/43, June to Aug 1943 Munda/Solomons, April to August 1944 Aitape, from Aug. 1944 New Guinea, Jan - June 1945 Luzon),

Americal division Maj-General Patch. It was formed from three independant regiments: 132d (Illionois Nat.Guard) , 164th (North Dakota Nat.Guard, swedish ancestry) and 182d (Massachusetts Nat.Guard). They were left over from switching infantry divisions from square to triangular organization: One regiment was subtracted. Americal Division was formed in May 1942, fought on Guadalcanal, Bougainville and on Philippines,

147th regiment Ohio National Guard: It was an independent regiment, leftover from triangularization. It served on Guadalcanal and afterwards as garrison.

All the National Guard units in the South (West) Pacific first were badly equipped and before the war hadn't trained for jungle warfare but for an European war of maneuvre. But they were the first American ground forces down under.

Sources: Eric Bergerud, Touched with fire: The land war in the South Pacific, p. 180ff. John Elliss, WWII: A statistical survey, p.192-196.

I now have removed the campaign-tag from the MIL as it makes no sense, considering the nature of the unit.

Does it look, without the campaign-tag, like an ok compromise? If so then we could probably streamline the write-ups for most MIL in the game (at least for the major powers, with exceptions)

Excellent.

I'd change the tag "These units fought on all fronts at all times and not just in defense of their home city".

These units didn't fight on all fronts at all times. That statement seems to overreach.

Instead they were occasionaly quickly mustered units called to the front (reflects the build time), which participated in occupation duties, or as local defense forces.

It does overreach but this was rather the thought considering the nature of the unit. I will give it a think though and see if I can formulate it in a better way.

What about linking the MIL counters (principally, not individually) to local non-field army units?

-The Replacement Regiments (Ersatzregimenter). There were a number of them in each Wehrkreis. They were linked to certain front divisions. And they were part of the Ersatzheer (Replacement Army) under General Friedrich Fromm, later Heinrich Himmler.

In praxis, the recuits after "Hitlerjugend" went through basic military training in the nearest Replacement Regiment. Then they were formed into marching batallions/companies (Marschbatallione/kompanien) and delivered to their regional based front divisions. Finally there they completed their military training in divisional replacement batallions.

Plus the Ersatzheer had various inspectorates for different arms and services (panzer, infantry, artillery, engineers, signals, medical services). In Febr. 1943 General Heinz Guderian was appointed even as Inspector-General of armoured troops. This meant, this special inspectorate served directly under the CiC Hitler, not under the Ersatzheer. The Inspectorates were responsible mainly for special field regulations, special training schools. But they also participated in weapon development and testing, together with the Heereswaffenamt (Ordnance) and Albert Speer's Rüstungsministerium (Ministry of war production).

The most famuous Inspectorate unit was the Panzerlehrdivision (Training division for armoured warfare). It was formed in Nov. 1943 out of the various Panzertruppenschulen (Panzer, Anti-tank, Panzerartillery and so on). -The Volkssturm: It was formed on Sept. 25th 1944 by Hitler and symbolically promulgated on Oct. 13th 1944 (the victorious battle of Leipzig against Napoleon 1913). It was organized and politically led by the Nazi party (Hitler's private secretary Martin Bormann and the regional Gauleiter), but commanded by the CiC of Ersatzheer: in 1944 Heinrich Himmler. By this doubled responsebility Volkssturm represented Nazi polycratical power structure.

I think that would be an excellent idea but from what I understand the MIL are representing all those and more, so it would be missguiding to do that. We will have to accept that some units are generic and use information from units like those you mention for anecodotial material. I think I will fill out the MIL-units with more stories as I find them but I am content with form I am using for now. Maybe later on, with more research done, I can revisit the MIL.

What I am really worried about now are the Russians. Since the Russian Army had no corps after the winterwar (source: Anthony Beevors Stalingrad) but only Armies and Divisions that will be a great hurdle for the writeups. I could really use a volounteer for the Russians that would do write-ups. That way I can continue with the others and aid that person with research.

ORIGINAL: wosung For German Mil: What else do they represent? (non-ironic question)

The thing is that the MIL represents everything not in a normal corps or division as I have understood it. So tying it to one type (like for instance the Volksturm) misguides the reader in what the MIL really represents. As I see it we can only make a sweeping write-up about the generic units, with some anecdots where possible.

I am a strong advocate of simply saying what you know about the unit. So, yes, I agree with Wosung on this.

Jesper, rather than have the disclaimer at the bottom, as you previously showed, how about placing it at the top? Keep it as short as possible but make it prominant. Then underneath that you could give an anecdote. You could always end the standard disclaimer with "For example, ..." That way each unit could have a unique writeup even though we have nothing specific to say about the unit. This could be combined with your idea of writing about the cities' experience in the war.

This could work out to be:, if something interesting is available about the city, then that is added below the standard disclaimer; failing to find sufficient items of note on the city, then some info about 'Militia' units in general could be added. The later could be definitions of the various types of of units that fall unit that label in WIF, or roles these units performed, or the process they went through to become integrated with the regular army units. or ...

Patrice, could you please change the font color for Saudi units (that should be in the ~CMI.CSV file) to white or yellow so it is easier to read. The black on dark green simply doesn't have enough contrast.

Jesper, after looking at all your militia writeups I decided that your layout was better than my suggestion. The simple statement at the top and the disclaimer at the bottom looks a lot better than my idea. However, in general, if there is nothing to say about a bullet point, simply delete it (e.g., decorations, commander of note). Oh, and there is a third M10 unit in the game for which the same artillery unit writeup can be used - the British Wolverine.

These are looking fine to me.

Less than 1000 units remaining that need writeups, volunteer now before they are all gone!

I have been looking at the layouts via the program to see what works and what does not. I must say I do like MIL-layout and I am glad you agree Steve.

About the empty bulletpoints I agree and I have started removing those, even if I have not yet have had the time to revisit my early works.

----

Actually there are only 880 units left to do and they are getting less by the minute! If anyone want to volonteer to do just one small country that is fine but we gladly accept those with bigger ambitions as well. On a personal note I must say this has been a lot of fun so far, reasearching and writing makes my detail knowledge of the war so much more profound.

I will attach my excel worksheet so you can see what countries are available and so on. The sheet is missing a few units but I will update it some day soon (Siam is missing for instance, I think)

EDIT: Hmm excel documents can not be attached...bummer.... ah well look at the one on page two til i figure out a good way to display it

I looked for Subai River but did not find it, I would have placed its name on the map. Would be cool when you mention some names to tell me, so that I look out and try to make them appear on the map, wouldn't it ?

Patrice, could you please change the font color for Saudi units (that should be in the ~CMI.CSV file) to white or yellow so it is easier to read. The black on dark green simply doesn't have enough contrast.

About the color, would you have the list of colors and their translation in current language, because the entry for Saudi Arabia looks like this

Patrice, could you please change the font color for Saudi units (that should be in the ~CMI.CSV file) to white or yellow so it is easier to read. The black on dark green simply doesn't have enough contrast.

About the color, would you have the list of colors and their translation in current language, because the entry for Saudi Arabia looks like this

The color of the strength is $00A1F7F7. Would you have a table where $00A1F7F7 is shown ?

What? This isn't intuitively obvious to the casual observer?

The colors are in hexadecimal ($) with the first two digits always 00 (02 here would indicate using 8 bit color instead of 24 bit color). The next 3 hexadecimal digit pairs are for BGR (backwards from RGB).

So, this color has less blue but almost maximum green and red. I don't know what that looks like - but it will be a bright color. To figure it out I would use CorelDraw which lets me create objects (e.g., a rectangle) for which I can set the RGB values of the fill.

The first Saudi color ($00408000) is the dark green for the country background colors. The colors, in order, are:

unit color, (i.e., background) icon color, (used to fill medium level bitmaps) land NATO outline color, (the frame for the box around the NATO symbol) land NATO interior color, (the interior of the box for the NATO symbol for corps/army/army group) strength text color, (used for all the factors, air/naval/land) unit size color, (used for XXX, XXXX, and XXXXX and the country 3 letter abbreviation) letter/division color (used for T for territorial, P for partisan, M for militia, and also for NATO interior color for divisions)

If you look at the Belgian unit you can see these colors at work. So the $00A1F7F7 appears pale yellow against a black background. It may or may not look the same against the Suadi dark green background.